I think that is the worst problem flood geologists have. They have no
detailed model. But what they do have DOES have certain expectations.
And Art, if we must wait for another generation, what has been wrong with
the past generation of flood geologists that they have not come up with any
sort of workable flood model. I searched for something workable for 20 years
and found nothing but disappointment. I admit I am not smart or creative
but in 20 years one would think that some concept would have come under my
gaze which might work. Global Flood advocates have long said they know what
needs to be done. Lets take a trip back through time:
"The reinterpretation of geologic data according to flood geology
would include a re-evaluation of all dating methods, including
especially a critical review of radiometric dating methods."~Duane
Gish, Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record, (El Cajon:
Creation-Life Publishers, 1985), p. 51
"If the flood really did occur, as the Bible clearly teaches, then
it necessarily follows that many or most of the geologic formations
must have been caused by the flood. We had tried to show how the
geologic data could be interpreted this way, but we repeatedly
stressed that our geological conclusions were tentative, subject to
modification through further research, provided only that the basic
Bible teaching of a global cataclysm not be changed."~Henry M.
Morris, A History of Modern Creationism, (San Diego: Master Book
Publishers, 1984), p. 169.
"One of the greatest challenges facing modern Christians is that of
re- orienting the actual facts of science within the framework of
true Biblical history. This is obviously no simple matter, since
these data have been forced to fit into the evolutionary mold for
over a hundred years now and the sorting and sifting and
re-arranging required is almost overwhelming in magnitude. To
re-evaluate all of the actual observational data of geology,
biology,paleontology, anthropology, astronomy and other
historically-oriented sciences in terms of the Biblical chronology
is an undertaking calling urgently for significant numbers of
dedicated Christian scholars, and they must be supported in these
efforts by concerned Christians everywhere."~Henry M. Morris,
Biblical Cosmology and Modern Science, (Nutley, New Jersey: Craig
Press, 1970), p. 68
"It becomes very important, therefore, for Christians to re-study and
re-think the great mass of geologic and paleontologic data, with two main
purposes in view."
...
"The second aim, which will be that of the following chapter, will be to
develop, if possible, a new scheme of historical geology, which would not
only be true to the biblical revelations that are pertinent to it but also
would serve as a better basis of correlation for the available scientific
data than does the present one." John C. Whitcom and Henry M. Morris, the
Genesis Flood, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1961), p. 119
We have had at least 36 years of being told this. I could probably trace it
back further. When is it going to happen?
Exactly what do you expect to see change in the next generation? More
researchers? I seriously doubt it. And at the end of another generation,
would you say that it is time to give up on a flood model?
>>What all these palynologists do find, as summarized by our resident
>>experts, is consistent with the long time-scale of strong stratification.
>
>Naturally. Since that is the only model being considered, one would expect
>it to be consistent with a model that generall gets away with predicting
>that things should be just the way they are found to be.
The global flood concept requires that all the sediment be deposited in a
single year. No matter how you slice it, that means that almost all the
erosion must occur at the beginning of the flood, and everything be stirred
up in suspension.
Here the laws of physics come into play, mixing everything up. The biggest
sedimentation law ought to be, large dense rocks on the bottom of the
geologic column and small less dense material at the top. We don't find
this pattern.
>I am a creationist who spent several very frustrating years trying to
>reproduce Burdicks work. In the end I was able to conclude that his report
>was due to sample contamination with modern palynomorphs, a conclusion that
>was not hard to reach given the source rocks he was using and the condition
>of the spores and pollen. I published these results in a couple of
>different venues. Don't make the mistake of assuming because someone has a
>particular view of earth history, he or she is incapable of sound judgment
>as a corollary. This would assure us that an evolutionary worldview could
>never be challenged from within.
For those who don't know Art, I have a deep respect for him. He is willing
to challenge his fellow creationists (and people like me also). Also, don't
underestimate him. I did that once much to my regret. He ate my lunch in a
discussion. :-)
>>
>>Unless some very large amount of counterevidence is reported -- by a wide
>>variety of researchers, of different nations and different religions -- I
>>must conclude that the young-earth Flood geology hypothesis is not
>>consistent with the evidence.
>
>It seems to me that you would have to first elaborate a flood geology
>hypothesis detailed enough to be able to generate such predictions.
Art, here it is the responsibility of those believing in a global flood to
elaborate a hypothesis which does not require us to ignore what we see with
our eyes. To date, all models fail at this point.
glenn
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm